Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Claims About Fluoride and IQ Are Unfounded
During President Donald Trump's televised Cabinet meeting on April 10, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy said that scientific research indicates that exposure to fluoride, a common mineral that helps prevent tooth decay, is associated with IQ loss in children.
'We are working at HHS to advance your agenda to make America healthy again,' Kennedy told Trump at the meeting. 'I'm working with [Environmental Protection Agency Administrator] Lee Zeldin on—to reassess the fluoride rules based upon the August release by the National Toxicity Program of new science that shows a direct inverse correlation between exposure to fluoride and IQ loss, particularly in children.'
Two days earlier, Kennedy made similar comments while speaking in Utah, which earlier this month became the first U.S. state to ban supplemental fluoride from water supplies. 'Fluoride should not be in our water,' Kennedy said, adding that fluoride levels added to toothpaste and mouthwash are sufficient. 'The evidence against fluoride is overwhelming. In animals, in animal models, and in human models we know that it causes IQ loss, profound IQ loss. And it's dose-related,' he added. 'So, the more fluoride you get, the higher levels in your drinking water, your urine, the more likely it is you'll lose IQ.'
Fluoride is not a substitute for brushing one's teeth—the minerals help defend the enamel from acids, but do not neutralize them—but has been found to prevent cavities and other dental-related woes. According to 2020 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 62.9 percent of Americans receive fluoridated water from their primary water source, either naturally present in the water or added into local water systems. Researchers in the early 20th century discovered that the level of naturally occurring fluoride in water sources affected the tooth development of nearby populations. While high exposure to fluoride could cause teeth discoloration, exposure to fluoride at lower levels of concentration were found to be effective at limiting tooth decay. Grand Rapids, Michigan—which has very low levels of natural fluoride in its water sources—in 1945 became the first city to add fluoride to its water system, and the practice quickly spread nationwide.
Contrary to Kennedy's claim, there is no conclusive research showing that fluoride exposure causes IQ loss, and the fluoride concentration levels present in local U.S. water supplies—which both the CDC and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) monitor—are not considered dangerous or harmful. Kennedy premises his claim on an August 2024 report from the HHS' National Toxicology Program (NTP)—not 'toxicity,' as Kennedy mistakenly said in the Cabinet meeting—which found with 'moderate confidence' that fluoride concentration in water above 1.5 milligrams per liter is associated with lower IQ in children. For reference, the CDC recommends a fluoride concentration of 0.7 mg/L, which the agency said is 'equal to 3 drops of water in a 55-gallon barrel.' As of April 2020, the report states, only 0.59 percent of Americans live in areas where the fluoride concentration in the local water supply exceeds 1.5 mg/L. The report states outright that it does 'not address whether the sole exposure to fluoride added to drinking water in some countries (i.e., fluoridation, at 0.7 mg/L in the United States and Canada) is associated with a measurable effect on IQ.'
The NTP report, which took eight years to complete, reviewed previously published studies that examined fluoride's relation to IQ. None of those studies examined American subjects or U.S. water sources, but instead collected data from Canada, China, India, Iran, Pakistan, and Mexico. NTP researchers found that 18 of the 19 research studies they examined showed a negative correlation between fluoride exposure and IQ levels in children. In areas where the fluoride concentration in water was at or exceeded 1.5 mg/L, children tended to have a lower average IQ than in regions where the concentration fell below 1.5 mg/L. But that's not necessarily evidence that the higher fluoride amounts are causing IQ loss.
'There's no proof that the water systems in the United States lead to an IQ problem,' said Dr. Margherita Fontana, a professor at the University of Michigan's School of Dentistry, adding that the NTP report's conclusion can be misleading in a few ways. Perhaps most glaring is that many of the water sources sampled in studies that the NTP report examined are 'not considered even safe for drinking because of many other contaminants,' Fontana told The Dispatch Fact Check. While IQ loss is associated with higher fluoride-concentration water, it's not evident that fluoride exposure is the driving factor—it very well could be water contamination. Indeed, Fontana explains that the data studied is sourced from 'places where, if you would travel, you would never drink the water.' The sources 'would have many, many other things in the water that would be of concern,' she added.
Another issue is that most of the studies cited in the NTP report estimated fluoride exposure through urine samples of pregnant mothers and children. 'Urinary fluoride is thought to reflect recent exposure but can be influenced by the timing of exposure,' the report states. However, the report's authors said that because the studies it examined had adjusted for the timing of exposure and so the data is 'generally considered' to have a low-risk of being substantially inaccurate. Fontana, on the other hand, is more skeptical of urinary fluoride's accuracy. 'There's no consensus that that is a good measurement of [fluoride] exposure,' she said. For example, a study published in March 2024 determined that research on fluoride's association with IQ loss, and use of urinary fluoride to measure exposure, 'should be considered unacceptable for legal and policy purposes.' It added that 'other water fluoridation studies and systematic reviews show no effect of fluoridation on cognition.
Moreover, while Kennedy claimed that evidence of fluoride's harmful effects are well-documented in animal model studies, the same NTP report reached the opposite conclusion. 'In early drafts, it was apparent that the animal data were of poor quality and that the human data were most informative and would be the basis of the confidence conclusions,' the report states. 'Therefore, findings from the animal evidence stream were determined to be inadequate and were removed from further drafts.'
It's true that significantly high fluoride concentration can have negative effects on human health, but not to the degree that Kennedy describes. The maximum concentration of fluoridated water that the EPA allows is 4 mg/L and, in areas where it is above 2 mg/L, water suppliers are required to notify local residents. If a local water system measures fluoride concentration at above 4.0 mg/L, and does not act to lower the concentration under the legal limit, the EPA could bring litigation on those grounds. But even those higher levels don't correlate to IQ loss. 'No one has been able to prove that drinking too much fluoride does anything to your neurological development,' Fontana explained. 'The only concern [of fluoride exposure] that I have, that is biologically proven, of drinking too much fluoride is dental fluorosis, which is a cosmetic tooth problem. It is nothing more.'
Fluorosis can cause teeth to become discolored in spots. In fact, although you may not know it, 'you probably have fluorosis,' Fontana said. 'Most people in the U.S.—most people around the world—have some level of fluorosis, because most water is fluoridated naturally at some level.' Fontana added that fluorosis is generally not a concern outside of the discoloration. In extreme cases, it can cause holes to appear in one's teeth, but that is not a big problem in the U.S. 'We have very, very few water sources that are naturally fluoridated at that level,' Fontana explained. 'But they do happen occasionally, which is why the EPA put that upper limit, saying, 'Listen, if you have more than 4 mg/L, you probably want to remove fluoride from this water source because of fluorosis being a problem.''
If you have a claim you would like to see us fact check, please send us an email at factcheck@thedispatch.com. If you would like to suggest a correction to this piece or any other Dispatch article, please email corrections@thedispatch.com.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Miami Herald
39 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Moderna Announces Positive Phase 3 Results for Seasonal Influenza Vaccine
mRNA-1010 demonstrated superior relative vaccine efficacy that was 26.6% (95% CI; 16.7%, 35.4%) higher than a licensed standard-dose seasonal influenza vaccine in adults aged 50 years and older CAMBRIDGE, MA / ACCESS Newswire / June 30, 2025 / Moderna, Inc. (NASDAQ:MRNA) today announced positive results from a Phase 3 efficacy study (P304) evaluating the relative vaccine efficacy (rVE) against influenza illness of mRNA-1010, the Company's seasonal influenza (flu) vaccine candidate, compared to a licensed standard-dose seasonal influenza vaccine in adults aged 50 years and older. mRNA-1010 achieved the most stringent superiority criterion prespecified in the protocol, with an rVE of 26.6% (95% CI; 16.7%, 35.4%) in the overall study population. Additionally, strong rVE was observed for each influenza strain contained in the vaccine, including A/H1N1 (rVE=29.6%), A/H3N2 (rVE=22.2%), and the B/Victoria lineages (rVE=29.1%). Subgroup analyses confirmed a consistently strong rVE point estimate across age groups, risk factors and previous influenza vaccination status. In participants aged 65 years and older, mRNA-1010 demonstrated an rVE of 27.4%. "Today's strong Phase 3 efficacy results are a significant milestone in our effort to reduce the burden of influenza in older adults. The severity of this past flu season underscores the need for more effective vaccines," said Stéphane Bancel, Chief Executive Officer of Moderna. "An mRNA-based flu vaccine has the potential advantage to more precisely match circulating strains, support rapid response in a future influenza pandemic, and pave the way for COVID-19 combination vaccines." In a previous Phase 3 study, mRNA-1010 had already demonstrated superior seroconversion rates and geometric mean titer ratios (GMR) against all strains included in the vaccine compared to both high-dose and standard-dose licensed seasonal influenza vaccine. [1] According to the CDC, seasonal flu-related hospitalizations and outpatient visits reached a 15-year high during the 2024-2025 season. [2] More than 600,000 Americans were hospitalized due to flu-related illness last year, leading to substantial direct and indirect costs, as well as widespread disruption to daily life and work. [3] P304 ( NCT06602024 ) is a Phase 3, randomized, observer-blind, active-controlled, case-driven, pivotal efficacy, immunogenicity and safety study. The trial enrolled 40,805 adults aged 50 years and older across 11 countries. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either a single dose of mRNA-1010 or a standard-dose licensed comparator, with a median follow-up of six months. Safety and tolerability of mRNA-1010 were consistent with reported results from a previous Phase 3 study. [4] The majority of solicited adverse reactions (SARs) were mild. Injection site pain was the most common local SAR, and fatigue, headache and myalgia were the most common systemic SARs reported. There were no significant differences between the groups in the rates of unsolicited adverse events, serious adverse events, or adverse events of special interest. Moderna plans to present these data at an upcoming medical conference and submit for peer-reviewed publication. The Company will engage with regulators on filing submissions for mRNA-1010. About Moderna Moderna is a leader in the creation of the field of mRNA medicine. Through the advancement of mRNA technology, Moderna is reimagining how medicines are made and transforming how we treat and prevent disease for everyone. By working at the intersection of science, technology and health for more than a decade, the company has developed medicines at unprecedented speed and efficiency, including one of the earliest and most effective COVID-19 vaccines. Moderna's mRNA platform has enabled the development of therapeutics and vaccines for infectious diseases, immuno-oncology, rare diseases and autoimmune diseases. With a unique culture and a global team driven by the Moderna values and mindsets to responsibly change the future of human health, Moderna strives to deliver the greatest possible impact to people through mRNA medicines. For more information about Moderna, please visit and connect with us on X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and LinkedIn. Forward-Looking Statements This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, as amended, including statements regarding: Moderna's engagement with regulators on filing submissions for its standalone flu vaccine candidate; and the efficacy, safety and tolerability of mRNA-1010. The forward-looking statements in this press release are neither promises nor guarantees, and you should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements because they involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors, many of which are beyond Moderna's control and which could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. These risks, uncertainties, and other factors include, among others, those risks and uncertainties described under the heading "Risk Factors" in Moderna's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, and in subsequent filings made by Moderna with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which are available on the SEC's website at . Except as required by law, Moderna disclaims any intention or responsibility for updating or revising any forward-looking statements contained in this press release in the event of new information, future developments or otherwise. These forward-looking statements are based on Moderna's current expectations and speak only as of the date of this press release. Moderna Contacts Media: Chris RidleyHead of Global Media Relations+1 Investors: Lavina TalukdarSenior Vice President & Head of Investor Relations+1 SOURCE: Moderna, Inc.


San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
EPA employees put names to 'declaration of dissent' over agency moves under Trump
A group of Environmental Protection Agency employees on Monday published a declaration of dissent from the agency's policies under the Trump administration, saying they 'undermine the EPA mission of protecting human health and the environment.' More than 170 EPA employees put their names to the document, with about 100 more signing anonymously out of fear of retaliation, according to Jeremy Berg, a former editor-in-chief of Science magazine who is not an EPA employee but was among non-EPA scientists or academics to also sign. The latter figure includes over 70 Nobel laureates. The letter represents rare public criticism from agency employees who could face blowback for speaking out against a weakening of funding and federal support for climate, environmental and health science. Scientists at the National Institutes of Health made a similar move earlier in June. "Since the Agency's founding in 1970, EPA has accomplished (its) mission by leveraging science, funding, and expert staff in service to the American people. Today, we stand together in dissent against the current administration's focus on harmful deregulation, mischaracterization of previous EPA actions, and disregard for scientific expertise," the letter read. Agency spokespeople did not immediately respond Monday to messages seeking comment. Employees want the EPA get back to its mission 'I'm really sad. This agency, that was a superhero for me in my youth, we're not living up to our ideals under this administration. And I really want us to,' said Amelia Hertzberg, an environmental protection specialist at the EPA who has been on administrative leave since February from the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, while the administration works to close down her department. Hertzberg's work focused on the most vulnerable groups impacted by pollution: pregnant and nursing people, young children and babies, the elderly, people with preexisting and chronic health conditions and people living in communities exposed to higher levels of pollution. That wasn't supposed to be controversial, but it's become so in this political climate, she said. 'Americans should be able to drink their water and breathe their air without being poisoned. And if they aren't, then our government is failing,' she said. Berg, who also directed the National Institute of General Medical Sciences at NIH from 2003-2011, said the dissent isn't motivated by partisan criticism. He said the employees hope it will help the EPA get back to the mission for which it was established — which 'only matters if you breathe air and drink water." The letter outlines what the EPA employees see as five main concerns: undermining public trust; ignoring scientific consensus to benefit polluters; reversing EPA's progress in America's most vulnerable communities; dismantling the Office of Research and Development; and promoting a culture of fear, forcing staff to choose between their livelihood and well-being. EPA has cut funding and rolled back federal regulations Under Administrator Lee Zeldin, EPA has cut funding for environmental improvements in minority communities, vowed to roll back federal regulations that lower air pollution in national parks and tribal reservations, wants to undo a ban on a type of asbestos and proposed repealing rules that limit planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions from power plants fueled by coal and natural gas. Zeldin began reorganizing the EPA's research and development office as part of his push to slash their budget and gut their study of climate change and environmental justice. And he's seeking to roll back pollution rules that an Associated Press examination found were estimated to save 30,000 lives and $275 billion every year. 'People are going to die,' said Carol Greider, a Nobel laureate and professor of molecular and cellular biology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who also signed the letter. She described last week's East Coast heat wave as evidence of the ways people are feeling the effects of climate change. 'And if we don't have scientists at the EPA to understand how what we do that goes into the air affects our health, more people are going to die,' she added. Berg said the declarations of dissent from both the NIH and EPA employees are noteworthy because they represent scientists speaking out as their careers are on the line. Even non-agency employees have to consider whether the government will withdraw research funding. Greider, asked about fears of repercussions or retaliation, said she's 'living the repercussions of everything.' She regularly meets with graduate students who are worried about pursuing scientific careers as labs lose funding. It's a long-term problem if we aren't supporting the next generation of scientists, she said: "That's decades worth of loss.' ___ ___

an hour ago
EPA employees put names to 'declaration of dissent' over agency moves under Trump
A group of Environmental Protection Agency employees on Monday published a declaration of dissent from the agency's policies under the Trump administration, saying they 'undermine the EPA mission of protecting human health and the environment.' More than 170 EPA employees put their names to the document, with about 100 more signing anonymously out of fear of retaliation, according to Jeremy Berg, a former editor-in-chief of Science magazine who is not an EPA employee but was among non-EPA scientists or academics to also sign. The latter figure includes over 70 Nobel laureates. The letter represents rare public criticism from agency employees who could face blowback for speaking out against a weakening of funding and federal support for climate, environmental and health science. Scientists at the National Institutes of Health made a similar move earlier in June. "Since the Agency's founding in 1970, EPA has accomplished (its) mission by leveraging science, funding, and expert staff in service to the American people. Today, we stand together in dissent against the current administration's focus on harmful deregulation, mischaracterization of previous EPA actions, and disregard for scientific expertise," the letter read. Agency spokespeople did not immediately respond Monday to messages seeking comment. 'I'm really sad. This agency, that was a superhero for me in my youth, we're not living up to our ideals under this administration. And I really want us to,' said Amelia Hertzberg, an environmental protection specialist at the EPA who has been on administrative leave since February from the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, while the administration works to close down her department. Hertzberg's work focused on the most vulnerable groups impacted by pollution: pregnant and nursing people, young children and babies, the elderly, people with preexisting and chronic health conditions and people living in communities exposed to higher levels of pollution. That wasn't supposed to be controversial, but it's become so in this political climate, she said. 'Americans should be able to drink their water and breathe their air without being poisoned. And if they aren't, then our government is failing,' she said. Berg, who also directed the National Institute of General Medical Sciences at NIH from 2003-2011, said the dissent isn't motivated by partisan criticism. He said the employees hope it will help the EPA get back to the mission for which it was established — which 'only matters if you breathe air and drink water." The letter outlines what the EPA employees see as five main concerns: undermining public trust; ignoring scientific consensus to benefit polluters; reversing EPA's progress in America's most vulnerable communities; dismantling the Office of Research and Development; and promoting a culture of fear, forcing staff to choose between their livelihood and well-being. Under Administrator Lee Zeldin, EPA has cut funding for environmental improvements in minority communities, vowed to roll back federal regulations that lower air pollution in national parks and tribal reservations, wants to undo a ban on a type of asbestos and proposed repealing rules that limit planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions from power plants fueled by coal and natural gas. Zeldin began reorganizing the EPA's research and development office as part of his push to slash their budget and gut their study of climate change and environmental justice. And he's seeking to roll back pollution rules that an Associated Press examination found were estimated to save 30,000 lives and $275 billion every year. 'People are going to die,' said Carol Greider, a Nobel laureate and professor of molecular and cellular biology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who also signed the letter. She described last week's East Coast heat wave as evidence of the ways people are feeling the effects of climate change. 'And if we don't have scientists at the EPA to understand how what we do that goes into the air affects our health, more people are going to die,' she added. Berg said the declarations of dissent from both the NIH and EPA employees are noteworthy because they represent scientists speaking out as their careers are on the line. Even non-agency employees have to consider whether the government will withdraw research funding. Greider, asked about fears of repercussions or retaliation, said she's 'living the repercussions of everything.' She regularly meets with graduate students who are worried about pursuing scientific careers as labs lose funding. It's a long-term problem if we aren't supporting the next generation of scientists, she said: "That's decades worth of loss.' ___